In this article, 25 years of data are utilized from nonprofit schools operating in the United States’ oldest and largest private school voucher program to test theories of isomorphism. We find that startup and religious schools belonging to an umbrella organization such as an archdiocese are particularly likely to serve similar student bodies at similar costs. In addition, we find that isomorphic pressures increase the longer a school participates in the Milwaukee voucher program, and that increased program regulation is related to increased sector isomorphism. The results illustrate the difficulty of using New Public Management style reforms, at scale, to encourage a diversity of nongovernment providers to provide a service traditionally provided by the public sector. The results will be of interest to scholars studying nonprofit institutional theories, school choice, and New Public Management style reforms.
AbouAssiKBiesA (2018) Relationships and resources: The isomorphism of nonprofit organizations’ (NPO) self-regulation. Public Management Review20(11): 1581–1601.
2.
AldrichHEMartinezMA (2007) Many are called, but few are chosen: An evolutionary perspective for the study of entrepreneurship. Entrepreneurship Theory and Practice25(4): 41–56.
3.
AldrichHEMartinezM (2010) Entrepreneurship as social construction. In: AcsZJAudretschDB (eds) The International Handbook of Entrepreneurship, 2nd ed. New York: Springer, pp. 387–427.
4.
AnderssonFOFordMR (2016) Social entrepreneurship through an organizational ecology lens: examining the emergence and evolution of the voucher school population in Milwaukee. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations27: 1760–1780.
5.
AnderssonFOFordM (2017) Entry barriers and nonprofit founding rates: An examination of the Milwaukee voucher school population. Nonprofit Policy Forum1(8): 71–90.
6.
Borsuk A and Carr S (2005) Lessons from the Voucher Schools. Milwaukee Journal Sentinel. June 12.
7.
BrysonJMCrosbyBCBloombergL (2014) Public value governance: Moving beyond traditional public administration and the new public management. Public Administration Review74(4): 445–456.
8.
CarlsonDECowenJMFlemingDJ (2014) Third-party governance and performance measurement: A case study of publicly funded private school vouchers. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory24(4): 897–922.
9.
CarnoyMRhotenD (2002) What does globalization mean for educational change? A comparative approach. Comparative Education Review46(1): 1–9.
10.
Catt AD (2014) Public rules on private schools: Measuring the regulatory impact of state statutes and school choice programs. The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Indianapolis, IN, USA.
11.
ChakrabartiR (2008) Can increasing private school participation and monetary loss in a voucher program affect public school performance? Evidence from Milwaukee. Journal of Public Economics92: 1371–1393.
12.
ChubbJEMoeTM (1988) Politics, markets, and the organization of schools. The American Political Science Review82(4): 1066–1087.
13.
CostrellR (2009) Who gains? Who loses? The fiscal impact of the Milwaukee parental choice program. Education Next9(1): 63–69.
14.
CoulsonAJ (2011) Do vouchers and tax credits increase private school regulation? A statistical analysis. Journal of School Choice5(2): 224–251.
15.
CowenJMFlemingDJWitteJF, et al. (2013) School vouchers and student attainment: Evidence from a state-mandated study of Milwaukee’s parental choice program. Policy Studies Journal41(1): 147–168.
16.
DeAngelis CA (2018) Is public schooling a public good? An analysis of schooling externalities. Policy Analysis Number 842. CATO Institute, May 9.
17.
DeAngelis CA and Burke L (2018) Does regulation induce homogenization? An analysis of three voucher programmes in the United States. Educational Research and Evaluation. Available at: https://doi.org/10.1080/13803611.2018.1475242 (accessed 19 May).
18.
DeAngelis CA and Wolf PJ (2018) Will democracy endure private school choice? The effect of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program on adult voting behavior. EDRE Working Paper No. 2018-03. Social Science Research Network, May 14.
19.
DeAngelis C and Wolf PJ (2016) The school choice voucher: A ‘get out of jail’ card? EDRE Working Paper 2016-03. Social Science Research Network, March 8.
20.
DiMaggioPJPowellWW (1983) The iron cage revisited: Institutional isomorphism and collective rationality in organizational fields. American Sociological Review48(2): 147–160.
21.
DynarskiMRuiNWebberA, et al. (2017) Evaluation of the DC Opportunity Scholarship Program, Washington D.C.: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regionals Assistance at the Institute of Education SciencesAvailable at: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/pubs/20174022/pdf/20174022.pdf.
22.
EgaliteAJJensenLIStewartT, et al. (2014) Finding the right fit: Recruiting and retaining teachers in Milwaukee choice schools. Journal of School Choice8(1): 113–140.
23.
FlandersWD (2018) The benefit of churn? Examining the market characteristics of the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Journal of School Choice12(2): 254–270.
24.
FlemingDJMitchellWMcNallyM (2014) Can markets make citizens? School vouchers, political tolerance, and civic engagement. Journal of School Choice8(2): 213–236.
25.
FordM (2013) Understanding School Finance in Wisconsin: A Primer, Hartland, WI: The Wisconsin Policy Research Institute.
26.
FordMR (2015) A faith-based advantage. Nonprofit Management and Leadership26(1): 91–104.
27.
FordMRAnderssonFO (2016) Determinants of organizational failure in the Milwaukee School Voucher Program. Policy Studies Journal. DOI: 10.1111/psj.12164.
28.
FordMRAnderssonFO (2017) Determinants of organizational performance in a reinventing government setting: evidence from the Milwaukee school voucher programme. Public Management Review. DOI: 10.1080/14719037.2017.1296487.
29.
FordMR (2017) The Consequences of Governance Fragmentation: Milwaukee’s School Voucher Legacy, Lanham, MD: Lexington Books.
30.
FriedmanM (1955) The role of government in public education. In: SolowRA (ed) Economics and the Public Interest, New Brunswick, NY: Rutgers Press, pp. 123–144.
31.
FrumkinPGalaskiewiczJ (2004) Institutional isomorphism and public sector organizations. Journal of Public Administration Research and Theory14(3): 283–307.
32.
GreeneJPMarshRH (2009) The Effect of Milwaukee’s Parental Choice Program on Student Achievement in Milwaukee Public Schools, Fayetteville, AR: School Choice Demonstration Project, University of Arkansas.
33.
HavemanHA (1993) Follow the leader: Mimetic isomorphism and entry into new markets. Administrative Science Quarterly38(4): 593–627.
34.
HessFM (2002) Revolution at the Margins: The Impact of Competition on Urban School Systems, Washington, DC: Brookings.
35.
HessFM (2008) The supply side of school reform. Phi Delta Kappan90(3): 211–217.
36.
HessFM (2010) Education Unbound: The Promise and Practice of Greenfield Schooling, Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
37.
HowellW (2013) What Milwaukee thinks about its schools: The results of polling and focus groups. In: HessF (ed) Pathways to Success for Milwaukee Schools, Hartland, WI: Wisconsin Policy Research Institute, pp. 137–142.
38.
HoxbyCM (2003) School choice and school competition: Evidence from the United States. Swedish Economic Policy Review10: 11–67.
39.
LeiterJ (2008) Nonprofit isomorphism: An Australia–United States comparison. Voluntas: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations19(1): 67–91.
40.
LeiterJ (2013) An industry fields approach to isomorphism involving Australian nonprofit organizations. VOLUNTAS: International Journal of Voluntary and Nonprofit Organizations24(4): 1037–1070.
41.
LeTendreGKBakerDPAkibaM, et al. (2001) Teachers’ work: Institutional isomorphism and cultural variation in the US, Germany, and Japan. Educational Researcher30(6): 3–15.
42.
LubienskiC (2003) Innovation in education markets: Theory and evidence on the impact of competition and choice in charter schools. American Educational Research Journal40(2): 395–443.
43.
LubienskiC (2005) Public schools in marketized environments: Shifting incentives and unintended consequences of competition-based educational reforms. American Journal of Education111(4): 464–486.
44.
MeyerJWRowanB (1983) The structure of educational organizations. In: MeyerJWScottWR (eds) Organizational Environments: Ritual and Rationality, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 71–97.
45.
MeyerJWScottWRDealTE (1983) Institutional and technical sources of organizational structure: Explaining the structure of educational organizations. In: MeyerJWScottWR (eds) Organizational environments: Ritual and rationality, Beverly Hills, CA: Sage, pp. 45–67.
46.
MilwardHBProvanKG (2000) Governing the hollow state. Journal of Public Administration and Theory10(2): 359–379.
47.
MilwardHBProvanK (2003) Managing the hollow state: Collaboration and contracting. Public Management Review5(1): 1–18.
48.
MizruchiMSFeinLC (1999) The social construction of organizational knowledge: A study of the uses of coercive, mimetic, and normative isomorphism. Administrative Science Quarterly44(4): 653–683.
49.
OplatkaI (2004) The characteristics of the school organization and the constraints on market ideology in education: An institutional view. Journal of Education Policy19(2): 143–161.
50.
PetersBG (2010) Meta-governance and public management. In: OsborneSP (ed) The New Public Governance, New York: Routledge, pp. 36–51.
51.
PowellWWDiMaggioPJ (1991) The New Institutionalism in Organizational Analysis, Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
52.
ProvanKGMilwardHB (2001) Do networks really work? A framework for evaluating public-sector organizational networks. Public Administration Review61(4): 414–423.
RowanB (1982) Organizational structure and the institutional environment: The case of public schools. Administrative Science Quarterly27(2): 259–279.
58.
SavasES (2000) Privatization and Public Private Partnerships, New York: Chatham House Publishers.
59.
StillmanRJ (1999) Preface to Public Administration, 2nd ed. Burke, VA: Chatelaine Press.
60.
StinchcombeAL (1965) Social structure and organizations. In: MarchJG (ed) Handbook of Organizations, Chicago, IL: Rand McNally, pp. 153–193.
61.
StuitDDoanS (2013) School Choice Regulations: Red Tape or Red Herring?, Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
62.
TeskePFitzpatrickJKaplanG (2007) Opening Doors: How Low-Income Parents Search for the Right School, Seattle, WA: Center for Reinventing Public Education.
63.
VerbruggenSChristiaensJMilisK (2011) Can resource dependence and coercive isomorphism explain nonprofit organizations’ compliance with reporting standards?Nonprofit and Voluntary Sector Quarterly40(1): 5–32.
64.
WarrenR (2011) Graduation Rates for Choice and Public School Students in Milwaukee, 2003-2009, Milwaukee, WI: School Choice Wisconsin.
65.
WitteJF (2000) The Market Approach to Education: An Analysis of America's First Voucher Program, Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
66.
WitteJFWolfPJCowenJM, et al. (2014) High-stakes choice: Achievement and accountability in the nation’s oldest urban voucher program. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis36(4): 437–456.
67.
Wolf PJ and Egalite AJ (2016) Pursuing Innovation: How Can Educational Choice Transform K–12 Education in the U.S.? The Friedman Foundation for Educational Choice, Indianapolis, USA.
68.
Wolf PJ, Witte JF and Kisida B (2018) Do voucher students attain higher levels of education? Extended evidence from the Milwaukee Parental Choice Program. Research Report, Urban Institute, Washington, DC, USA.
